Worcester panhandling ordinances upheld

A federal judge has refused a request for a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of two Worcester ordinances aimed at controlling aggressive panhandling.

“The City has a legitimate interest in promoting the safety and convenience of its citizens on public sidewalks and streets,” U.S. District Court Judge Timothy S. Hillman stated.

“I find that both ordinances are narrowly tailored to achieve their intended purposes: Ordinance 9-16 bans only aggressive forms of solicitation — those which are most likely to result in possible violent confrontation, that are most likely to intimidate those being solicited and that are most likely to endanger the solicitor and/or members of the general public,” he explained. “Ordinance 13-77 essentially bans people from congregating and/or loitering on traffic islands, medians and other like public ways under circumstances where such conduct could prove distracting to drivers and pedestrians.”

The judge also found that the ordinances also leave open ample alternative channels for communication.

“While it is true that enforcement of the ordinances may end up having a disproportionate effect on the poor and homeless, I do not find that Plaintiffs have evidenced a likelihood of establishing that the City’s actions have been taken ‘with an evinced intent to discriminate against an identifiable group,’” Hillman wrote.

“In my analysis, I have found that the City has a legitimate reason for enacting the ordinances in question, that these interests are substantial and necessarily outweigh the Plaintiffs’ interest in the unfettered right to solicit in public areas,” the judge concluded.

“I further find that it is in the public’s interest to be safe and secure in their person, and for safety of all to be maintained on City streets, sidewalks, traffic islands and similar public areas.”